I like the setup information for Axis and Allies Global Second Edition 1939 and was wondering if there is a setup for the global game for 1936 which include the Italian - Ethiopian conflict, or if there is global setup starting in 1937 which would primarily include China and Japan?
AARHE 1939 Edition
-
We have Azores which not Iceland?
yes considered. The location of this would most likely be with yet another territory.
I think Greenland should also be neutral… but the french labeled as Vichy must remain as the free -french territories because the rules should be easy to convert. The ones not labeled free french are Vichy, the free french ones income goto UK and some forces are deployed in both types of areas. I did make some minor changes for Portugal (added one IP)
Also, you cant cross the Dardanelles unless you control turkey ( land on both sides) this makes a need to attack them or convert as allies. ( more value than normal neutral)
moved Chicago to other side, added mountains to pacific areas and some more European states.
Other than Greenland and possibly Brazil/ cuba i think its done.
edit: all fixed as per new replacement file above.
-
@Imperious:
Tekkyy please jpeg this or png it for others. I think this will be it for the final version unless i missed something.
PNG version
http://www.mediafire.com/?0zcm2cdtcewSahara is “Desert” not “Impassable”.
I noticed you’ve improved the coast lines or Denmark, Balkan and Turkey. :mrgreen:
“Colony of Spain” writing is no longer needed because Spain has its own colour. Like Portugal.
You’ve create new territories in China. We can check a geographic map and might be able to mark additional “Mountainous”.
-
Thanks for the PNG version. I appricate it. By the way nice map.
-
OK ill get those fixed.
I also will redo India and french indo china adding Burma and Belushistan
I will make Arabia look better and possibly add something for south America as some colony for UK, so they can at least build a infantry
I will also make the oceans come alive with some memory intensive ‘special something’ that makes the water look real.
-
A few observations:
China is much better like this; it stops Japan just breezing across it to attack Russia. I would also make IM and Szechuan mountains.
Hopei should really be Japanese controlled by 1939.
Unless I’m confusing it for somewhere else, Almaty is down in the south-east of Kazakhstan.
I would question the addition of Atlantic islands when this ocean is so small and easily crossed in a turn.
(You knew this was coming) but R de O really IS in the wrong place. Placing it correctly also means that you have a western sahara territory that is passable (Algeria-RdeO-FWA), but ONLY at the cost of violating Spanish neutrality, which gives the place some meaning at last.
Here’s the biggie: MOSCOW
With the German/Soviet border much further west I have to say that the AAR placement of Moscow looks even more absurd. I know you want to retain the fundamental structure of AAR, but the main reason for placing Moscow in the Urals is lost on a map of this date, so please consider:
Placing Moscow in the West Russia territory
Renaming “Russia” as Urals
Readjusting the IPC income accordingly, i.e. West Russia 8, Urals 2
You could even divide “Urals” north/south with the southern rump becoming “East Russia”Otherwise, it’s going to be awfully difficult for the Germans to get that far, especially since they start on such a relatively low income base. Of course it puts Moscow 1 space further from Japan, and with the new China the Japanese aren’t going to threaten Moscow for a while; but then this should open up less predicatable (and more historical?) strategies for Japan anyway.
-
I cant make those changes because:
-
they either don’t effect the game in any meaningful way are aren’t really historically inaccurate to any measurable degree and
-
they dramatically effect play balance. The game has to maintain the same integrity when it comes to where ( e.g. how many spaces) territories lay.
The rules will easily fix any issues with Soviet income ( they will collect none or less until at war much like USA will until they are at war.
-
-
But Moscow in Europe would still be MORE spaces away from the German front line units, it would effect gameplay in I think a positive way (it makes Moscow attainable for Germany) and it’s a hell of a lot more historically accurate.
By doing a 1939 scenario you’re entirely destroying any game balance surviving from the AAR version, so why not take the opportunity to put right one of the most obvious absurdities of the game?This placing of Moscow where it ain’t seems to be a sacred cow with some folks.
Perhaps I’m just confused as to what is meant by “Historical Edition”.
-
@Imperious:
I also will redo India and french indo china adding Burma and Belushistan
Yeah we made new territories in China. Adding new territory in India would be consistent.
I will make Arabia look better
Might as well slightly adjust the Gibraltar coastline too.
Narrow it so its more obvous like Denmark (strait interdiction).Possibly map change…its a bit strange you have to survive thru Gibraltar strait before you can invade it?
But then if we could adjust the SZ 12/13 boundary it means you can amphibious attack it from US.I cant make those changes because:
You should answer them slowly because Flashman’s point about Spanish neutrality sounds like it has meaningful effect.
-
But Moscow in Europe would still be MORE spaces away from the German front line units, it would effect gameplay in I think a positive way (it makes Moscow attainable for Germany) and it’s a hell of a lot more historically accurate.
By doing a 1939 scenario you’re entirely destroying any game balance surviving from the AAR version, so why not take the opportunity to put right one of the most obvious absurdities of the game?You miss the whole point in this: The variant must allow very similar ideas/ strategies and moving MOscow one closer changes ungodly number of things.
-
the spaces have to be large enough to allow for the pieces on the map ( even if they are double size as OOB)
-
The OOB playtested rules have already decided that BASED ON THIS MAP MOSCOW NEEDS TO BE IN EXACTLY THE TERRITORY IT IS. Larry and his gang have playtested the map and found this solution. It less relevant if its aesthetically in the incorrect place because playtesting demonstrated the need to keep it X number of territories away from Germany proper. Try to understand this. Moscow was put their for a reason .
-
-
I think Flashman’s point is that since the game is starting out at 1939, Germany is already father away from Moscow. And the whole game is going to be different. The map that was play tested was based off 1942 not 1939. It may actually be a more balanced game if Moscow is moved one space closer to Germany. As it is, Germany is the same distance away as Japan is from Moscow in terms of spaces.
Perhaps play testing needs to be done on this map to determine if Moscow is in the right spot. I would hate to see the game turn into a battle of Japan vs Russia. Because if there are less units in the East, the axis may have a much better chance of winning the game if Japan dukes it out with Russia and Germany just fights off France and UK.
Either way the game is going to be a lot different from starting in 1939 to 1942.
-
Yea i see that point coming… but i intend to make the rules to be able to be used with many scenarios… not only 1939. I can now make 1940-44 scenarios all changing positions on setups. I suspect the Germans will have some compensation to be able to move forward so that the position of Moscow will be perfect. ( hence I will time the material advantages to allow for this to happen or as Tekkyy would say “to model it”
I always prefer to model the flow of the game by the rules rather than the map.
-
ok new version. Many aesthetic changes going into this.
please PNG.
-
As a history buff I want Moscow to be right where it is in Revised ed., even if Flashy dont like it. Western Europe had railroads and highways and it was easy to move. Russia had bad dirt-roads and lot of marshes and forests and snow, and this is best representet in giving Russia lots of territories wich will boog down movements of an attacking army.
Russia need 3 factories. If the total of placement is 12 units a turn, I would do it like this.
- Caucasus was the heavy industrial complex, and also the big oil source. Give it 4 IPC.
- Volga area too, located between Moscow and Ural, was a heavy industrial complex. This is the traditional Russia, give it 6 IPC.
- Leningrad, as named Karelia in Revised, also was a big industrial complex with lots of ship yards. Give it 2 IPC.
All territories between Moscow and Japan should be cut in two and double the range between this two antagonists.
Also Caucasus shold be split, and the southern part be mountains.
-
adlertag can you see the map? you got adobe viewer downloaded?
-
I found out that my computer came all along with an adobe viewer.
Interesting changes IL. I miss the nice circle things with the number inside. As from what I can see I only see the numbers. Perhaps it is my adobe viewer.
I like the Moscow zone split.
Not sure what the Oil Rigs are for but they look pretty good.
Everything looks good. I expect IPC values will be added in due time.
Keep up the good work.
-
the numbers have circles… i am not sure why you dont see them, but adobe does have problems. I will change IPC to reflect Mark Harrisons book “the economics of WW2” which is the bible for these things.
Oil will allow for plunder and lack of control of them may effect movement of specific units. Something allowing for bombing of these exceeding the value of the territory (double probably or by D6) I would like both Japan and Germany to try to get these places for economic reasons to model the reasons why they made blunders.
azores will allow possibly german bombers the ability to bomb texas oil . control will be important.
-
I think Flashman’s point is that since the game is starting out at 1939, Germany is already father away from Moscow. And the whole game is going to be different. The map that was play tested was based off 1942 not 1939. It may actually be a more balanced game if Moscow is moved one space closer to Germany. As it is, Germany is the same distance away as Japan is from Moscow in terms of spaces.
Perhaps play testing needs to be done on this map to determine if Moscow is in the right spot. I would hate to see the game turn into a battle of Japan vs Russia. Because if there are less units in the East, the axis may have a much better chance of winning the game if Japan dukes it out with Russia and Germany just fights off France and UK.
Either way the game is going to be a lot different from starting in 1939 to 1942.
Thanks, that was exactly my point. I assumed that the map was intended specifically for a 1939 scenario, but a “one map fits all” version is a different ballgame.
However for all sorts of reasons I still think Moscow should be where it really is:
1. I hate the boring and predictable German/Japanese “race to Moscow” playout that dominates standard games.
2. It places the Soviet player in a totally unhistorical position strategically. Moscow WAS this close to Germany; it’s up to the designer to solve this problem by looking at what happened in the real war; altering geography is cheating in my book.
They actually solved the problem by moving a huge amount of industry to the Urals, Kuzbas and Kazakhstan, out of range of German attacks. This meant that even if the principle line of Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad had fallen, the USSR could still have fought on from their eastern provinces and still produce huge quantities of tanks and aircraft.
I think the solution of moving MOSCOW hundreds of miles east which “Larry’s Gang” came up with is based on the assumption that you absolutely HAVE to have the “capture the capitol with the capital” rule which to me seems so outdated for WWII.
Remove the c-t-c rule (which most people seem to want modifying at least) and the loss of Moscow becomes less decisive and so the city can be safely placed in it’s correct location without breaking the game.My map has 5 Soviet ICs: Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kharkov and Chelyabinsk. The later is the Urals centre which replaces the unhistorical Moscow, Kharkov (or Kiev if you prefer) represents the huge industry of Ukraine; in a 1939 scenario the Urals centre can be deleted but give the Russians the option of transporting this complex east. In 1942 it is of course German occupied, however I never allow players to use enemy complexes.
3. On a more historical map, Japan just isn’t going to get to Moscow that easily; mountainous and forested terrain, and numerous small Chinese territories would likely wear them down. That means that Moscow really has to be attainable for the European Axis, and placing it in the Urals just about destroys this, especially for a pre-1942 game.
Latest map:
Rio de O looks much better where it is, but my suggestion was that it should border Algeria/Morocco to allow units to move down the west African coast (it was known as Western Sahara for a time). Depends on how you interpret “passable”; does being a coastal territory (even though mainly desert) make it passable to land units because they’d get support from navy off-shore?
If it doesn’t link Alg-FWA RdO would still be a redundant area.You’ve called Gold coast Nigeria; the latter would be in the south-west of the FEA territory.
Where to place other oil fields?
Burma, East Indies, Borneo, Caucasus, Trans-Jordan (Iraq) would be the obvious ones, I don’t think there was significant extraction in north Africa at this time. Saudi? Mexico?Am I correct in assuming that the two Central USA parts are actually one territory?
Couple of reminders:
Libya (spelling)
French Roundel (red and blue need reversing) -
Remove the c-t-c rule (which most people seem to want modifying at least) and the loss of Moscow becomes less decisive and so the city can be safely placed in it’s correct location without breaking the game.
AARHE never uses that rule. In fact none of my games created since the beginning have this concept. Only france, Italy, and Germany have various degrees of effect when a the capital falls. I am not changing any roundels. forget it. Rio De Oro will not be changed a second time.
Also, AARHE does not support victory conditions that would allow Japan to attack moscow. They have national victory conditions to satisfy. Read AARHE > if people however want to play normal OOB then they can do that with this map.
And the map is in fact an “everything scenario”. I don’t like people having to waste money on different maps for each year. The modules will allow for different set ups.
Keeping India in one because it weakens it to break it up and its important for UK to protect the middle east oil.
considering making Germany into east/west but still don’t want to make territories too small. I could make a dotted line which basically says (its one territory but if the allies invade they can take just one half)
I don’t agree with this idea that if the western half of Soviet Union falls “they keep fighting w/o missing a beat” that is bogus reasoning. If they lost those 3 cities/territories they would cease to be a real major power and resort to something that was going on in China also with no effective military presence. Your quite wrong in that approach.
England would continue to fight in Canada but also with limited effectiveness.
france is france and surrenders when the wind blows too strong
Italy is the same…just add a full day of bad wind
-
ok using France as a base figure ( i think they have a perfect IPC level of 17)
we have this according to Harrison:
Germany 32 currently at 12 need 20 more
Italy 13 currently at 8 need 5 more
Soviets 31 currently at 34 need -3
France 17 at 17 good
Japan 16 currently at 14 need +2
UK 24 currently at 32 -8
USA 74 currently at 38 need lots at 36
China 7 goodok where to add and subtract???
ideas>
-
I think this is more playable
POWER ….WARMAKING POTENTIAL
USA- 42 %
Germ- 15 %
USSR- 14 %
UK- 10 %
Fran- 4%
Jap- 3.5 %
Italy - 2.5 %
others- 10 %
Suggested Topics
